Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 5

I don't know about you fellows but...
I have never like that picture of Stalin at the top. It's too perfect. It's too much like a Soviet propaganda painting drawn to overglorify Stalin as some god. I could understand if Stalin really did look like that but he didn't. Stalin was never in that good of physical shape or that clean shaven. In fact his face was filled with freckles. The point is, we should try to find the best, clearest, REAL photo of a particular person possible. Good examples would be the Winston Churchill page.--Secret Agent Man 21:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'd much prefer a real photo as well. Everyking 21:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Most soviet photos before 1973 don't have a copyright, so the hardest part will actually be finding one that wasn't touched up by his propaganda people. -- tomf688 (talk) 21:52, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded this image, I thought it was pretty good, and especially so because he's facing to the left. Good enough to replace the portrait at the top? Everyking 07:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks better, but maybe it could be cropped a bit? Sholtar 23:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I oppose. This is an official parade portrait, used here for official purposes, in the infobox. You may put real-life photos in the artcle body, but what's the purpose of putting ugly scanned low-quality photos on top? I say the same POV only in the opposite direction. Unless a good quality photo provided, the replacement is a no go.

By the way this version of the portrait is digitally mastered. That's why he Stalin looks so shiny. I'd suggest to use the very first uploaded version of the image.

As for "clean shaven", this is a very unwise remark. Did you see him much in person? And I don't see any freckles at Everyking's image either; disqualified? :-)

And if one really wants to be nasty, they may easily disqualify Churchill's photo as well, as well as Adolf Hitler's, Patrice Lumumba, Mikkalai's, and so on... Mikkalai 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

School life
How do we know Stalin hated being forced to learn Russian at School? Is there a source, because his later life doesn't confirm it. Or is there only evidence that they all hated it. Also we do not know whether he thought education was his only route out in life. The truth is we have no idea what he may have thought as a child about his life. Again we do not know if he studied his fellow students. Do we have sources from classmates to prove the rest of this paragraph. Again we do not know that Stalin knew no-one would challenge him. This is misty rhetoric. Certainly later on he showed a paranoid perception that people would indeed challenge him, which is why he killed so many party members. Again we do not know that he tried to do the best in everything he did. I have taken out obvious speculation. --SqueakBox 02:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) We don't know his father beat him and his mother "for no apparent reason. There has been so much speculative material here about his early years. We don't need to speculate or even wonder about his state of mind before his ride to power but it didn't make any difference.--SqueakBox 18:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Excellent edit, Squeakbox. When I first saw the article, it said "for no reason." Well, there has to be a reason, even if it is not obvious to a rational person. I changed it to "no apparent reason." Your edit makes it even better, removing all speculation.Wikislm 19:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More
Can we be certain his second wife committed suicide. There are rumours he killed her and the whole area is surrounded by mystery, as whatever happened was covered up to protect stalin's reputation (which does not mean he did anything bad. I have added the word maybe commited suicide which actually fits in better with the rest of the sentence. SqueakBox 15:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda
I am pretty sure the early life is taken from some Stalinist propaganda, some memories of a classmate that could in no way be considered to reflect an accurate view of his childhood. The whole piece feels like a Stalin propaganda piece. I will wade through the archives, but if I cannot find a source for it there I will delete great portions of this sub-section. What is said is not credible, and does not concur with other and possibly more reliable pre-revolution accounts of Stalin. Before I edited the worstt out it was full of speculation and POV. --SqueakBox 02:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually think that much of it could be seen as the work of someone with a certain (negative) view of Stalin's political career, trying to ascribe personality attributes to that and then projecting it back into his childhood for the sake of crafting a good biography with a central theme. But either way it's the sort of material that definitely needs thorough sourcing. I would even be in favor of removing all the questionable stuff for the time being, since this is such a prominent article and so it's better not to take chances. Everyking 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry
After some thought I have to agree that the following phrase:


 * He was also rumored to have Jewish ancestry. Among suggested origins of the rumor is the episode with Papismedov related to Stalin's childhood.

requires substantiation: why this rumor is important, as well as how it was discussed in serious research (like, e.g., Ossetian hypothesis). My initial insistence of its inclusion had the goal of its debunking, but I realize now that to debunk something, it must be sugnificantly notable, i.e., a standard "notability" criterion of encyclopedia. Mikkalai 17:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death
I question if Stalin is still embalmed, as when Stalin was first embalmed he was placed next to Lenin. Then during Krushev's de-Stalinization period he had Stalin taken out of the Lenin mausoleum and burried then his grave was covered with cement so as to prevent him "from rising again" --Bongoman 10:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death toll numbers and sources
There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia about the death toll numbers. On our 20th century page there is a section on the most deadly events of the 20th century. The current version of the text says:
 * "Joseph Stalin's rule (1924-1953) - 40-60 million (but at least 20) million dead."

Some editors find this number highly exagerated (the original text simply said "20 million or more dead"). The proponents of the higher numbers cite this quote in their support:
 * "According to Roy Medvedev, Stalin's victims numbered forty million. Solzhenitsyn says the number is far greater-perhaps sixty million. The debate continues even now."

From the book: Lenin's Tomb : The Last Days of the Soviet Empire by DAVID REMNICK (p. 129).

My question is. Are the numbers cited above (40-60 million dead) reasonable or do these numbers include Gulag prisoners who survived? I know that it is difficult to estimate the death toll, but what are the most authorative sources on this subject? Can you help me find a reasonable range for estimation and the best sources to support it?

I appreciate your help. nyenyec &#9742; 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Most mainstream western historians give a figure of 10-20 million; that is itself probably a considerable overestimate. Everyking 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Info box inaccuracies
I think there something wrong with the infobox (the top one with the picture) and the succession boxes at the bottom. First the infobox says his term of office was from 1922-1953 (I assume we are talking about the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, here, so I added that in). But if we are talking about the office of General Secretary, how can we say Lenin was the successor, as Stalin was the first General Secretary? Also, I'm not as sure about this, but I believe all Soviet leaders following Stalin were known as "First Secretaries", so Malenkov doesn't technically work as a successor either, I don't think. Also, the successor box on the bottom for General Secretary is definitely wrong, as Stalin was the first and Lenin never held that position, he was the Chairman, and indeed granted Stalin his position. Didn't want to make changes without consensus. --Dmcdevit 01:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The "secretary" position was that of the top boss of the Soviet Communist Party. There is no reason to play technicalities about a particular "office" with a specific title. The issue is pretty confusing and there is no reason to put these intricacies in an infobox. At the same time, I agree that the formal details about party leadership must be addressed more carefully in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union article. Mikkalai 23:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just that I assumed, with such specific info there, dealing with de facto leadership is tricky. Perhaps if the infobox said it was only leader, that would help. But that's not the common convention. For George Washington, to use an example of a first officeholder, we don't say preceded by George III, or whomever, just because that is the leader. Well... on second thought that's not the best example, because it's a different country. But what I'm trying to say there's got to be a better way to do it without implying that Stalin and his predecessor and his successor all held the same title. --Dmcdevit 23:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern opinion
What about people's opinion of Stalin in modern Russia? It could be quite interesting.

Certain segments of the population
removed:
 * , and by providing certain segments of the population benefits so as to win their support or co-opt them into the regime.

What the heck these "certain segments" are? If bureaucracy is in mind, then this is of no special note: at all times in every state a bureaucrat lives better than a peasant. Apart of these (with a special subclass of apparatchiks), there were no benefitted segments. Mikkalai 22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Moscow
Minor quibble, but shouldn't the article at least mention, and possibly elaborate on Stalin's decision to stay in Moscow as German forces approached in December of 1941? As I understand it, practically every government official evacuated, but Stalin was adamant in his decision to remain. Seems a significant enough event to include here. SS451 03:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Deportation of Romanians
I removed the following addition by an anon, about deportations of nationalities
 * Romanians (from Moldova), 

I have a very vague memories on the issue. If this took place, then it must be covered in Population transfer in the Soviet Union in the first place. There certainly were deportations during the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, but these were of class character, rather than national.

I will try to dig something tonight. Mikkalai 21:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone
Trey, AFAIK you are an experienced wikipedia editor. You must already know that headfirst editing of an intro in controversial articles, ike this one, leads to edit wars 100%. Are you seeking one? Why don't we discuss important additions at the talk page first? mikka (t) 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * i just find it a little offensive that apparently we can't reference the enormity of his repression in the intro. "severe repression" just doesn't cut it for a regime that is regarded in the Western world (and many other countries as well) as one of the most extensively constructed totalitarian networks. and i have not seen 172 effectively contest the characterization of Stalinism as totalitarian aside from listing a few historians who go along with his position, which is by no means the definitive one. J. Parker Stone 21:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading the "totalitarianism" definition: attempts to control nearly every aspect of personal, economic, and political life, I canot but agree that this is a very weasely definition. Clearly, it is impossible to control "every" aspect of something. So the word "nearly" is thrown in; which really does not change much, but gives an illusion of objectivity. Further, the word "control" itself is bad choice. "Control" in what sense?  U.S. law (i.e. U.S. state) "controls" every aspect of everything. That's why american lawyers prosper.
 * ... I think I am abandoning this topic. The "tot" article is full of bullshit and logical fallacies, starting from circular logic thru the whole set of faulty generalizations and all the way towards to creating a straw man each time a politician needs one.


 * It is especially amusing how the hair was being split totalitarian vs. authoritarian. For some magic reason this split perfectly matched U.S. political and economical intersets. It looks like magic effectiveness of mathematics, where the same formula describes both radioactive decay and breeding of rabbits. Only poli sci is not math. It is rather a proof of the agenda under these definitions.


 * But I don't care about this any more. I've got the idea that wikipedia sucks in political articles, for a very simple reason: these articles describe not facts, but ideas, however there are virtually no neutral people on political issues. mikka (t) 22:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * it's sorta hard to be neutral on a subject like this. J. Parker Stone 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i thought Mikkalai made a good consensus until Ruy came in and mucked it up. J. Parker Stone 04:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i recognize that 172 contends that there are some Sovietologists who oppose the label "totalitarian" (he mentioned a few of them) but surely there's more that do think it applies? and the view is quite common in the Western world and probably elsewhere. i'm not saying make this article Western-centric and discount the aforementioned Sovietologists' views, but Stalinism = totalitarianism is something that has been accepted as a fact for a long time in several countries -- why else would "Stalinist" typically be used as an insult, on par with "Nazi"? and of course we have Orwell's famous 1984... J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)

collectivization
"Collectivization had met widespread resistance, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities and millions of deaths."

I'm not even sure where to start with this. Widespread resistance? Many peasants? Resistance from kulaks, maybe. They were a very small minority however. Not much resistance from batraks and bednyaks, who benefited from collectivization and were the vast majority.

Then there is the conditional "resulting" with it's dubious causality. The sentence more than implies that the "bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities" which caused "millions of deaths" was due to the "authorities" shooting millions of peasants in the head or something. One must go further down in the article to see that what is said to be a famine is actually what killed them. Whether or not there was a famine, or whether millions died, the causal connection is stated as a fact, not a theory. Actually, later in the article it is more qualified than in the heading - "many historians agree" that "collectivisation was largely responsible".

Finally there's the "millions of deaths" due to a supposed famine (a famine not mentioned in this article, "collectivization" is the killer). This "famine" in which "millions died" was somehow missed by the New York Times, which reported at the time that reports that there was a famine in which millions were dying were false. Ruy Lopez 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * this doesn't even merit a response. J. Parker Stone 07:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

agree with J. Parker Stone. Mike

Picture
can we get a more real one? it looks like a propaganda portrait. J. Parker Stone 09:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

recent edits
the Ukrainian disaster and the enormity of the purges' and collectivization's impact are quite relevant. as for totalitarianism, we can discuss that as well, but I definitely object to the fact that (last I checked) it is not mentioned once in the article. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 00:47 (UTC) I agree- the information about the deaths of political opponents should be included in the introduction (why was it removed?), as should the reference to totalitarianism. Joe 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Night of the Murdered Poets X 2?
From the "Doctor's Plot" section of the article:

"The Doctors Plot followed on the heels of the 1952 show trials of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which resulted in twelve of the thirteen defendants being executed,[249] and (emphasis added) the Night of the Murdered Poets, where thirteen prominent Jewish writers, poets, actors and other intellectuals were executed on Stalin's orders.[250]"

Aren't these events one and the same? Unless my history is a little fuzzy, I don't believe there were two trials which resulted in the execution of Jewish intellectuals in the same year (1952). Although the Black Book of Communism does note that ten "engineer saboteurs" from the Stalin automobile factory, all Jewish, were executed on the same night. (p. 248)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The Night of the Murdered Poets involved JASC members.  I just changed it.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Volga Germans
... and Volga Germans were allowed to return en masse to their homelands.

From what I've read, most of the (descendents of) the Volga Germans have emigrated to the West; a few thousand settled in the Kaliningrad Oblast.

Sca (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthday footnote
Birthday 1879 should also be where 1878 is, both birthdays are valid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

triple talks cessation
I added a little bit more detailed explanation for the triple talks failure and removed the mentioning of secret negotiations. Since Watson directly states a reverse, it is better to live it beyond the scope. Below is a direct quote from Watson's article: "The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of 'capitalist encirclement', had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies." Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Invalid link. Repost? Luna Rain HowLCry 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322. Does it work?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That edit is also highly misleading, especially given the complete events described in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.

A change, complete with sources and actual description (by the way, including Watson) is forthcoming.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Molotov-Ribbentroparticle is misleading too. Since reputable sources exist that state that no secret talks took place, you cannot re-insert that. Addition of new references do not change a picture. Watson has at least the same weight that those three. And the science is not a good place to resolve problems by numbers of sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You constantly replace my sources taken from high profile peer reviewed journals (the most reliable sources) with the references to books. It is incorrect. Please try to propose the version that satisfy both of us, or I revert your changes.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "that state that no secret talks took place"

->You've got to be kidding, what source denies, as just one example, the August 3 conversations with Ribbentrop? ->In addition, and this is likely an English problem, you're completely misreading Watson. He explains in your quote above that the Soviet WERE conducting parallel negotiations, but just gives the reason why.


 * Re: "And the science is not a good place to resolve problems by numbers of sources."

->I have no idea what "the science" is, and there is ZERO disagreement with the sources on what's in the article now. In fact, I made sure not to include any of the controversial points, except by the way the ones you keep demanding in, like the later discussions attempting to bring in Munich in 1938 and the like.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "You constantly replace my sources taken from high profile peer reviewed journals (the most reliable sources) with the references to books. It is incorrect."

->Not only is this false, but I cited your source Watson in the article. In fact, I actually cited him more accurately than you did.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Did I understand you correct that you removed Watson by accident? Don't worry, I'll fix it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He's in there TWICE NOW, which you keep deleting while leaving the reasons blank: "On August 21, the Soviets ceased military talks with France and Britain over disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(ref name='dwatson715')Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322(/ref)(ref name='roberts30'/) though the primary reason may have been the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(ref name='dwatson715')Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322)/ref)"

If you delete the sources and facts one more time without explanation, I'm going to ANI and you'll probably get blocked on this article. Frankly, I should have done it weeks ago given all of the policy violations.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is YOUR SOURCE -- the one you keep claiming must be cited -- Watson's quote:"'When this problem had been surmounted the negotiations stalled on the fundamental question of Soviet forces passing through Romanian and Polish territory in the event of war, to which the Polish government would not give agreement in advance. When it became clear that the British and French could not solve this problem, Voroshilov (note: the chief Soviet negotiator) proposed adjournment on the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks was interfering with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces. In fact it was because of the progress being made in the USSR–German negotiations: the talks with Britain and France were overtaken by the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. (Derek Watson, p. 715)"This is the article quote now:"After disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(Watson cite ->), on August 21, the Soviets proposed adjournment of military talks using the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks interfered with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces, though the primary reason was the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(Watson cite ->)"Mosedschurte (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"''Strang claimed that Molotov realised the 'impropriety' of his previous definition of 'indirect aggression' when, on 8 July, he suggested defining it as 'the use by a European Power of the territory of one of the undermentioned states for purposes of aggression either against that state or against one of the three contracting countries'. Seeds believed that Molotov put forward this formula spontaneously, in an effort to be helpful." This was a high point in the negotiations; Strang describes Molotov as 'affable and cooperative' and there was now some chance of agreement" After that the talks stalled, according to Watson. Carley summarized it in the following words:"The key issues were over guarantees of the Baltic states, a definition of 'indirect aggression', and negotiations for a military convention tied to the political agreement". I give no references you perfectly know them. regarding the military agreement, Watson writes: "Molotov was now prepared to accept the Netherlands and Switzerland in the list of countries, on the conditions he had already specified, but he ruled out Luxembourg, perhaps justifiably, as of 'too little importance to merit a special mention'.113 Now, possibly because of the deteriorating European situation, he made the military agreement the priority, insisting that this should be signed simultaneously with the political one, saying the Soviet government was unanimous on this''" More quote:"On 29 July Molotov authorised Astakhov in Berlin to indicate that the USSR would welcome the improvement of political relations with Germany.131 This action is not surprising: he was receiving information from Maisky of Anglo-German negotiations, that discussions with the USSR were becoming a lower priority for the British, and a pessimistic report from the Soviet ambassador in France." I explained my changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More quotes from Watson:
 * PS. I don't think your going to ANI would have the effect you expect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) . I think you added something like 5-6 ref tags, and every single one had a massive format error -- some even without the source info -- with left a huge red error message across the page in the notes section.
 * 2) . I had to fix all of these.
 * 3) . I kept most of what you added in.  In fact, much of it was almost directly out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.
 * 4) . You inexplicably deleted the August 2 political talk suspension/Molotov demand from Shirer, here's the quote:"But since the political conversations had been suspended on August 2 and Molotov had made it clear that he would not assent to their being renewed until the military talks had made some progress (Shirer, p. 504)"It was added back, in almost exactly the same words, with the cite.
 * 5) . You inexplicably seem to have concluded that because a discussion occurred on July 29 that was mentioned by Watson, that no talks ever occurred before that (which, of course, is absolutely nowhere to be found in Watson).  So the date, which wasn't supported by the sources that followed, was deleted.
 * 6) . Other than the above, I have to say that at least this time you didn't wipe out several sources and facts, which was smart, because I was about to go to ANI with your whole line of conduct, threats, admitted POV pushes, etc. on a number pages.  I've been about as patient as I can be, laboriously engaging in you in very long discussions about the most simple matters -- most of which about which historians don't even disagree.  I'm pretty sure most other editors wouldn't come close to bothering to this disagree, but there's a limit.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Other questions I propose to discuss tomorrow. Good night. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I think you added something like 5-6 ref tags, and every single one had a massive format error" That is why I propose to return to the way succesfully used by other editors: take the disputable fragment to the talk page, discuss it untill the consensus is achieved, and then re-inset it into the main article. This would save both your and my time.


 * Better idea: just correctly use Wikipedia format for ref tags.


 * I actually ended up adding all of the sources you tried to, which I had to deduce from the only information you gave, the author's name and a number (with no spaces in between), that I assume must have been meant as a page number.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Carley writes: "The study of Soviet archives, which are beginning to open, may prove or disprove this view, but for now Soviet deceitfulness-though Stalin was certainly proficient in it-appears no worse than that of France and Great Britain." We are smart men, and I don't believe you don't understand what does it mean. Date restored.
 * Re: 4. I deleted it because that contradicts to other sources. Of course, the question which source takes precedence is a delicate and complicated matter, therefore I am not ready to start a long discussion about 2 Aug. However, the sentence looks awkward now, and I will think about its modification later. Of course, it would be much more convenient to discuss it with you, but you refuse to collaborate...
 * Re: 5. Take a look at the quote above. Watson directly stated that "These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies." In other words, the USSR didn't carry secret negotiations in 1939, according to Watson. Roberts (see MRP talk page) directly stated that the first political instruction to Astakhov that authorized him to listen German proposals had been sent on 29 July. Moreover, On 28 July Molotov telegraphed Astakhov that 'in restricting yourself to hearing out Schnurre's statements and promising to pass them on to Moscow you did the right thing'.  (ibid). That means that no secret negotiations took place before that.
 * Re: 6. You badly overestimate your politeness and readiness to collaborate. Nevertheless, you are interesting person, and I enjoyed to work with you. Since we have several common points of interest (although dramatically different vision), I expect we will meet many, many times on WP pages, and, I hope, will elaborate more convenient way to collaborate.

Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Watson directly'' stated that "These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies." Re: "In other words, the USSR didn't carry secret negotiations in 1939, according to Watson."

->THAT's what you've been citing for the no secret negotiations point?!? Then I now have to delete it in all articles for which that point is cited now. You've  completely misread  the paragraph and Watson (again). And AGAIN, it's an intro section quote you've misread (which you earlier did with a Roberts article, as well). ->I'm not going to jump on a dishonesty angle because this may be an English language issue. ->Watson states the parallel negotiations did occur -- in fact Watson himself documents them late in his article -- but argues that they were considered "double dealing" by UK-France because of their "contrasting attitudes" to the talks. ->Watson argues that the Soviet delays were usually for their own interests (i.e., not for sabotaging UK-France talks) and that they felt that they likely couldn't get the military guarantees they wanted while, in contrast, the UK-France didn't feel the Soviets could participate in a long war. Here is the the quote with the first part of the paragraph not cut off:"From the beginning, the two sides approached the negotiations differently. The Western powers believed that war could still be avoided and, if it came, the USSR, much weakened by the purges, could only function as a supply base in a long war of attrition, not as a main military participant. The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of ‘capitalist encirclement’, had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939 : carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies. Molotov has been accused both of artificially dragging out the talks with Britain and France by seizing on various inessential details to secure a successful outcome or better deal with Germany, and also of summarily breaking them off and concluding an alliance with Germany when on the verge of success with Britain and France. But the delays which Molotov caused were usually on issues essential to Soviet interests, and there appeared to be an impossible obstacle to the vital military convention with France and Britain when the agreement with Germany was signed.''' (Watson, p. 695 -- intro page)"You've destroyed your no parallel argument point by including Watson -- not that anyone supported your point anyway.  ->And by the way, arguments like Watson's are one reason that the article doesn't contain allegations of sabotage and purposeful delay right now.


 * Re: "Re: 4. I deleted it because that contradicts to other sources. Of course, the question which source takes precedence is a delicate and complicated matter, therefore I am not ready to start a long discussion about 2 Aug."

->I've not seen a single source state that Molotov didn't demand that their be progress in the military talks before the suspended political talks could restart.

Therefore, my question is: you either present evidences of secret talks, or I remove all materials remotely related to the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "You've destroyed your no parallel argument point by including Watson". Nothing of the kind. "Charged" doesn't mean "proved". Many sources state that Stalin, probably, conducted a secret negotiations. Generally, they are old sources, a cold war time sources, or sources that are based on old sources. However, there is no direct evidences for that so far. By contrast, Watson, Carley, Roberts directly state that no secret talks took place. No German official documents exist that could confirm the fact of secret negotiations. In close future, I will try to obtain English translation of the Soviet documents on that account, however, I don't believe I'll find anything (otherwise Roberts, who extensively cited "God krizisa", would write about that).
 * PS. I apologize. I thought you already modified the phrase " with whom the Soviets had started secret discussions since July 29[86][87]". Apparently, it is there. I am satisfied with this phrase and think it reflects the course of the events correctly. Do you think we can remove other three references? They seem to be redundant...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Thumb Pixel Sizes
All of the image px tags were deleted, with the MOS given as the reason, but the MOS doesn't say that the default must be used without exception, rather, it says that this is the "rule", but they can be adjusted with px tags:"   * As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e., one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to force size, images should generally be no more than 550 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors."

The MOS goes on to provide and inclusive list of examples where px thumb adjustment may be appropriate: "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include: Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image, Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts, Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article,  Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image, Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels."

Not only was adjustment proper for the thumbs with px tags, but many of them fit specifically into these examples, such as detailed maps (M-R Pact maps, Soviet advances on Eastern Front, Eastern bloc map), original documents images where detail is difficult to examine (Beria's letter, Stalin's resolution, the Politburo's decision, March 5 memo) and photos where the detail is important (Reichstag flag raising photo, Ribbentrop and Stalin signing pact).

Also, not only did none of them exceed 550px described in the MOS, but I think they all were 300px and under.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead Image change
The editor Viplovecomm just changed the lead image from, to this artists' rendition,.

The actual photo of the subject is preferable to an artists' rendition, though I must say, nice job if he actually did create that himself.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh, I much prefer the photo that shows Joe's rough skin and untamed hair. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that was actually a Soviet propaganda image.Kurzon (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Deniers and Stalinists
It is well known fact that denying Holocaust is crime in Germany and many other countries. In general, most countries scrutinize even a slightest attempt of trying to distort views about Holocaust. Just check out video interview with Bishop Williamson given to Swedish TV where he claims that only 200-300 thousands of Jews were killed and none of them in gas chambers. If this kind of topic can be a reason for dispute in Wikipedia then it should be closed down immediately. Wikipedia doesn't exist so that various sickos can change historic facts but to allow us to get objective, balanced and most accurate view of history and other subjects. I guess that we can then expect pedophiles, bank robbers and cannibals to come here and dispute carious topics as well.

Valeofruin that disputes facts about Stalin purges and Gulags openly admits that he is Holocaust denier as well and that he would gladly dispute Holocaust as well on Wiki pages. His claims that only 400,000 people died in Gulags is very similar to the numbers Bishop Williamson gave about Holocaust. The exact number of death is always hard to determine but there are good statistical methods used like lower number of males, city population and others that can accurately indicate number of people who perished. I'm not sure who Valeofruin is but only two options remain. He is either a wacko or he is being paid by Russian KGB government that openly glorifies Stalin. Web site he quoted is financed and run by undercover KGB(FSB) agents. Ravenlord, February 12, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenlord (talk • contribs) 11:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Role in Russian civil war
That section states the Bolsheviks won that war in the late 1919. That is completely wrong by any historic books and textbooks. Officially the war ended in 1922, but there was still fighting going on in the Russian Far East. That is what the Soviet historical textbooks say. For some reason the war with the Ukraine is being perceived as the Civil war in Soviet times and it seems that the same trend exist today as well. That is also wrong. Ukraine was a recognized state by the Soviet Russia as well as by the other numerous countries. That was a straight aggresion against the Ukrainian republic, following an unbelievable slaughtering of population in Ukraine by bolsheviks (Kyiv and Podillia still remembered). In 1920 Ukraine united with Poland to stop the bolshevik bandits. The Soviet textbooks state that it was an intervention of the "White" Polish burgouis, relating it to the Russian white movement which is way off.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Article discussion only please, not discussion on the subject. This applies to a few discussions you two have commented on, so could you please keep on subject for the sake of others and the capacity of wikipedia to handle this chat. Thanks Protectthehuman (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, however, initiation of a debate that clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLE, WP:ANARCHY and WP:SOAP must be commented on and stopped. It may seem slightly edit-warrish, but bear with me/us. As for Wikipedia's capacity to handle this chat...WP:PAPER. ...Ω... ..¿TooT?....¡StatS!.. 04:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Prose length from 142k to 70k
Still a monster article over Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, it's going to be huge given the 29 year rule of the Soviet Union at the very center of world history during the time.

There were some huge sections for which no sub-articles existed, such as Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars and Stalin's rise to power, so the prior text (unedited) is all there. They were actually so long, that they're pretty nice-sized articles now. Now, I (and others) can add to them without worrying about ballooning the size of the Stalin article. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Down to 96k. Just had to move a lot of material that I'd worked on to Stalin in World War II, but it was too long for this article.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now 93k readable prose. I added sources and summarized for the purge section.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did some more summarizing, mostly of the WWII sections (most of which I'd added before) that are in the Stalin in World War II article, and it's now down to 83k readable prose.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Down to 79k now. I just summarized the beginning of the Cold War section, with links to the main articles.  Most of that section had contained text or cites that I had earlier provided over the last few months.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The birth rumors and long discussion of name transliteration and etymology is in Stalin before the Revolution, so this is now down to 73k readable prose (11.7k words).Mosedschurte (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate shifting things into sub-articles because people editing the short summary in the main article without checking, letting alone working, on the material in the sub-article. Was the old way really so difficult for a reader to deal with?Kurzon (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) In connection to that I think we can discuss a possibility of removal of the "too long" tag. The neutrality tag removal also can be discussed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, removal of the text made by Mosedschurte improved the article a lot. We don't need a long description of the WWII events etc., because it is the article about Stalin, not about the USSR. Now the article more resembles the article about Adolf Hitler (that is very good to my opinion, btw).

At 72k readable prose and 11,500 words. There was long material regarding birth year controversy, etc. pretty much word-for-word repeated in Stalin before the Revolution. Also, the long transliterations descriptions of Stalin's name were repeated literally within an inch of itself in his info box.


 * At 70k readable prose and 11,100 words after shortening the section on the Doctors Plot (and moved some material to that article). I had written much of that section in the first place, but it was really too long for the article given the length issues.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i think it's good that the article is being resized but all those references to newly created articles (Stalin Before the Revolution, Stalin after...) makes very hard to translate to other langauges....i hope we can find a means to make these articles as cohesive as possible  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seektrue (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to focus
The article's sections on Stalin after he attained total power deal too much with the general history of the USSR. A lot of sections are basically long sections of Soviet policy with "oh yeah, Stalin approved this" tacked on to them.Kurzon (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We need to focus on the decisions made by him, not approved by him. For instance, his role in signing a pact with Germany, not taking measures against looming German invasion, wrong prediction of the direction of major German offensives in 1941 and 1942, not helping the Poles in Warsaw in 1944, stopping the Soviet Oder offensive 90 km from Berlin in 1945, etc., was decisive. By contrast, his role in 1943-44 military operations was not considerable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of just focusing on his personal situation. How much power did he have and when?  What alliances did he make and break?  Who did he betray?  Notice that the early years part of the biography doesn't talk much about his political beliefs or the big picture of what was happening in Russia, except when strictly necessary to give context to his actions.Kurzon (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article was still too long at 73k (11,737 words) readable prose, and the recent attempt to go to 97 kB and 15,660 words is far far too long. The general standard is: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."


 * Understandably, it's difficult with a figure like Stalin, who was a leader for 29 years and at the heart of so many huge events and changes. Hitler's article has the same problem, but it was only 12 years. That's why, like for Hitler, there are other articles addressing Stalin's rather substantial role during other events and periods of his life, such as Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars, Stalin's rise to power and Stalin in World War II.  And there are obviously other sub-articles for nearly every event, with main and see tags for main articles like Collectivization, Great Purge, Socialist Realism, Cold War, Eastern Bloc, Doctors Plot, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Kurzon. I think we both mean generally the same. The only thing I didn't think about was "Stalin's political beliefs". You are definitely right, it is very important, because many peoples think he was a Marxist.
 * Dear Mosedschurte. Although you are generally right, your "29 vs 12" is not completely correct. In contrast to Hitler, it is hard to name an exact date when Stalin took a real power. Although Stalin became a general secretary in early 20s, he was not the most influential person in the party at the beginning of his secretarship. He took a full power later, only in late thirties. Therefore, the difference between him and Hitler in terms of the duration of their actual leadership is much lesser. In addition, since Nazi Germany possessed greater economical, political, intellectual and scientific potential than pre-war USSR did, I don't think Stalin's role in world history was greater than that of Hitler.

Please Stop Copying and Pasting Other Articles into this one
An attempt was made to copy and paste the text of Stalin before the Revolution‎, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars‎ and Stalin's rise to power into this article. This grossly inflated the article size to 93kb readable prose and 15,109 words -- over double the median of the general standard that: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."

As directed by Wikipedia policy, this article summarizes those much more extensive long articles on various subjects, and on other such subjects. Even so, it is still (at this moment) 70kb of readable prose and around 11,200 words.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

CelebHeights
Should we really be using CelebHeights as a source for Stalin's height in the "Cult of personality" section? If we're going to talk about "photographic evidence," someone needs to find a serious academic source for it. I don't see how CelebHeights even remotely passes the threshold for any of the standards set out by WP:RS. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling
Under the heading "Religious Beliefs and Policies", the word "atheist" is misspelled as "athetist".
 * Correct it then :] ...Ω... ..¿TooT?....¡StatS!.. 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inserting Too Long template per WP:TOOLONG
Read the title. ...Ω... ..¿TooT?....¡StatS!.. 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable tactics
"After the capture of Berlin, Soviet troops reportedly raped from tens of thousands to two million women,[159] and 50,000 during and after the occupation of Budapest.[160][161] In former Axis countries, such as Germany, Romania and Hungary, Red Army officers generally viewed cities, villages and farms as being open to pillaging and looting."

They did same thing in Poland. My grandma told me that she had to hide all girls what were at home because Russians raped girls and women no matter of what age, they've been seen raping girls as young as 5 and as old as 80. Same thing with looting, they steal my grandma's cows, car and her jewelry.

--DumnyPolak (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates are not even correct. Wikipedia fails again
I hope that in my absolute state of procrastination I am just overlooking something here BUT, how can Stalin be "ejected from the Politburo in November 1929. Stalin took great advantage of the ban on factionalism. By 1928 (the first year of the Five-Year Plans) Stalin was supreme among the leadership. and the following year Trotsky was exiled because of his opposition."

that makes no sense... Or am I somehow getting this wrong.

I hope I am. ````````````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.215.205 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading trough the TIME archives, I found that it seems like Stalin’s consolidation as the sole leader of the Soviet Union came in the year of 1926:

Alone - Monday, Aug. 30, 1926 One hundred and twelve million U. S. inhabitants acknowledge the executive shepherdage of Calvin Coolidge, refuse to "recognize" the 139 million Soviet Russians over whom Joseph Stalin has reared himself a despot. M. Stalin ("Mr. Steel") exerts, simply as Secretary of the Communist Party, a political "boss power" prodigious and all pervasive. A cobbler's son whose actual name and age are doubtful, "Mr. Steel," was born in the remote Transcaucasian land of Vras-tan, Gruzia or Georgia. Amid the purging flames of revolution, the great Dictator Lenin tested and tempered the Georgian's metal, gave him the prophetic name of Stalin, installed him in the office which he has made the focus of all Russia, the Secretariat of the Communist Party. Last week M. Stalin ordered dropped from the Cabinet of Premier Rykoff—of which he, himself, is not a member—his onetime "Left Hand Man," Foreign and Home Trade Commissar (Minister) Leo Kamenev. Into the vacant Ministry stepped with effrontery and assurance one Mikoyan, like M. Stalin a Georgian, unlike M. Stalin, a mere pliant boy. As everyone knows, Gregory Zinoviev, the onetime "Right Hand Man" of M. Stalin, was expelled during the summer from the potent Communist Political Bureau. M. Stalin, astute, inflexible, omnipotent, has chosen to dictate alone.   Synthesis - Monday, Oct. 11, 1926 Joseph Stalin now rules as the undisputed dictator of Soviet Russia. During the past twelve-month he has demonstrated his control of the Communist Party and the Government by reducing to political vassalage or inconsequence no less than six of Lenin's most potent disciples: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, Sokolnikov, Lashe-vich and Kamenev.   Humble Pie - Monday, Oct. 25, 1926 Joseph Stalin dictates at Moscow, having overthrown Leon Trotzky and many another. Recently M. Trotzky and other anti-Stalinites, notably MM. Zinoviev and Kamenev, have been rumored to be gathering strength for a war of propaganda against the man of steel. Last week M. Stalin, no office holder but the despotic "boss" of the Communist party, rapped out three orders. Leon Trotzky and his malcontents were commanded to cease their opposition to the dictator's will. For an hour they temporized, then found courage for battle ebbing.  <BR> Hero Up - Monday, Nov. 29, 1926 Pavel Ephimovich Dybenko, young and colorful Communist, emerged into the news again for an instant last week when Dictator Stalin of Soviet Russia appointed him Chief of the Red Army Supply Service.

Stalin/Haman

 * Stalin and Purim 1953 at [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.216 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor issue
There was a bit of a problem with his birthdate: instead of December 18 1878, it should be December 18 1879. MagnetJ18 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The official date of 1879 was falsified see the note 1 of the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalin as hero of the working class
No where does the article mention stalins love for the the working classes, and their love for stalin. See the Talk sections above for extensive discussions of length issues.

Two attempts have been made to recopy the text of these articles into this article today. Please stop this, at it violates WP:Article size, inflating the article far beyond the 6-10,000 word targets. The general standard is: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."  Mosedschurte (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Article size belongs to WP guidelines, not WP policy, therefore they should be followed except where common sense warrants an exception. This article is that exception, so I don't see any problem with the last change made by Kurzon. In addition, the Kurzon's version seems to be more neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of it is just copying and pasting in the text of other pre-existing articles on Wikipedia -- Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars, Stalin's rise to power -- a big no no.


 * Second, it would have ballooned the article to 15,120 words. That's not a small violation, but a gross violation of the 10,000 readable prose target.   Some FAs do go above that, but 15,120 words is monstrous.  It was already well over the limits, at 11,000+ words, before the duplicate copy and past text job (which was also separately impermissible), which is understandable for a figure who ruled for such a long period time involved in so many significant activities.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, discussion about the article's size belongs to the realm of common sense, not to the realm of strict rules, so any mentioning of gross violation look like awkward wikilawyering. I compared both Kurzon's and your version and I concede that both of them have their own strengths and weaknesses. To my opinion, the first part is better in the Kurzon's version, it looks more academic whereas your version is more propagandistic (and, therefore, not neutral; note, non-neutrality is a real violation of the WP policy, not guidelines). To my opinion, Doctor's plot, Falsifiers of history and similar marginally important sections should be removed or considerably shrinked. That would give us a space for expansion of the section telling about Stalin's early years.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's withing "Common Sense" and not some hardline definition -- that's why it hadn't really been cut down to 10,000. It was OVER 11,000 words already before the copy and past jobs ballooning it up to monstrous 15,000+ words (forget the problems with simply copying and pasting duped text from another article anyway).


 * Re the Doctor's Plot, much of the information was already moved to the Doctor's Plot article. As an aside, that you referred to Doctor's Plot as "marginally important" is a bit funny and revealing, especially regarding the life and death of Stalin (it probably deserves its own section instead of a subsection), but we'll move on. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One way or the another, many sections should be shrinked and combined, some of them should be removed. This would give a space for the Kurzon's text about early Stalin's years. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PS. Did I understand correct that you don't mind to remove Falfifiers?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Doctor's plot section in as twice as long as the "Soviet stop the Germans" section. Do you think it is correct? As regards to its relation to the "Stalin life and death", I am not sure I understand what do you mean. The Doctor's plot had more relation to the life and death of the Soviet Jews who were planned to be sent to Birobidjan, not to Stalin himself.


 * Re: "Did I understand correct that you don't mind to remove Falfifiers?"
 * Where did I even mention that? It was actually one of the few late writings we have from Stalin.


 * Re: "The Doctor's plot had more relation to the life and death of the Soviet Jews who were planned to be sent to Birobidjan, not to Stalin himself."
 * It's not even clear that he actually was going to send them there, but it obviously was the largest plot -- many would say paranoia-based -- at the end of Stalin's life, and toward which he had shifted many in the government in attacking just before his death. Obviously, it might have also been directly related to his death if one believes the Beria rumors (addressed in his death section), but we'll never know there.


 * Also, and perhaps this should be better explained in the article, the paranoia at the end of Stalin's life, of which the Doctor's Plot was one part, had widespread implications throughout the Eastern Bloc (not just the Soviet Union). As just one example, at the end of 1952 to the beginning of 1953, huge numbers of Eastern Bloc citizens were fleeing fearing what he might do next.  Kruschev later discussed how many were worried in that last year.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the articles needs more cutting down, so I agree with Mosedschurte. It's just a common sense. And not only by separating into sub-articles, but also reducing the amount of general history. Some places simply read as History of Russia (except instead of "Russia" you see "Stalin"). Not all that happened in Russia is attributable to Stalin personally. Renata (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The part I stuck in was what the article originally contained before Mosedschurte moved it into subarticles, so in a sense I was reverting the section back to its old state.

I would like to state that this article should focus on Stalin personally. Right now this article contains to much general history of Russia during the Stalin era. If we want to trim down the article, I suggest we begin there. We should move those sections into subarticles and keep the actual biographical info within the main article.Kurzon (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, please don't copy and paste most of the text of Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars, Stalin's rise to power. The general standard is: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries." That makes it over 15,000 words.


 * Second, copying and pasting text from another article, which not only is a serious no-no in the MOS, but there is a Template:Duplication for it.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that a few sections need to focus a bit more upon Stalin's personal decisions and actions, though it is clarly MUCH more Stalin focused that it was when it was a 22,000 word monstrousity which was more of a Soviet history lesson. But you're mixing up an article "about Stalin personally" with essentially a gossip column, wishing to focus even MORE than the large swaths of text already in the article about the details of his childhood, relationships, schooling, post-school jobs, regional bolshevik activities, exiles, actions, actions as a general, etc -- all of which are mentioned already, but without huge amounts of detail.  Stalin, like any other long-ruling leader, is primarily notable for the actions and moves he personally made while in power.  And in Stalin's case, that actually stretches for nearly half of his life (1924-1953).  Were he not in power, but just Joe Jughashvili a cobbler from Gori who was one of thousands of minor Bolshevik regional and military leaders, and never went higher, none of the other information would be noteworthy for a Wikipedia article.  Because he was a leader, some is,   e.g., his birthplace, his early regional Bolshevik work, his work effectively as a general, etc.  But it doesn't mean one has to go hundreds of words into each item.  Especially in an article with huge WP:Article Size issues already.


 * Keep in mind that several other huge sections were cut way down. Frankly, sections that contained far more notable personal decisions from Stalin,  such as the sections focusing on Stalin's personal actions and decisions from 1939-1945 in World War II -- which literally meant life and death for hundreds of thousands of people (and sometimes over a million) in many battles and campaigns -- that were cut down by about 70%.  Mosedschurte (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously arguing that the Germans and Soviets didn't talk about a potential deal before August 23, 1939?
I can't imagine a more WP:Fringe position. Roberts certainly doesn't state anything like this, and in fact, himself even quotes the famous August 3, 1939 statement " "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us." (page 32)

Here are just a few of examples:


 * On July 26, over dinner, the Soviets accepted a proposed three stage agenda which included the economic agenda first and "a new arrangement which took account of the vital political interests of both parties."
 * On July 28, Molotov sent a first political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany.
 * On August 1, the Soviet ambassador stated that two conditions must be met before political negotiations could begin: a new economic treaty and the cessation of anti-Soviet attacks by German media, with which German officials immediately agreed.
 * On August 3, German Foreign Minister Joachim Ribbentrop told Soviet diplomats that "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us." The Germans discussed prior hostility between the nations in the 1930s. They addressed the common ground of anti-capitalism, stating "there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union:  opposition to the capitalist democracies," "neither we nor Italy have anything in common with the capitalist west" and "it seems to us rather unnatural that a socialist state would stand on the side of the western democracies."  They explained that their prior hostility toward Soviet Bolshevism had subsided with the changes in the Comintern and the Soviet renunciation of a world revolution.  Astakhov characterized the conversation as "extremely important."
 * By August 10, the countries worked out the last minor technical details to to make all but final the their economic arrangement, but the Soviets delayed signing that agreement for almost ten days until they were sure that they had reached a political agreement with Germany. The Soviet ambassador explained to German officials that the Soviets had begun their British negotiations "without much enthusiasm" at a time when they felt Germany would not "come to an understanding", and the parallel talks with the British could not be simply broken off when they had been initiated after 'mature consideration.'
 * On August 12, Germany received word that Molotov wished to further discuss these issues, including Poland, in Moscow.
 * August 19 - Hitler himself sent out a coded telegram to Stalin stating that because "Poland has become intolerable," Stalin must receive Ribbentrop in Moscow by August 23 at the latest to sign a Pact.
 * August 21, Stalin has received assurance would approve secret protocols to the proposed non-aggression pact that would grant the Soviets land in Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Romania. That night, with Germany nervously awaiting a response to Hitler's August 19 telegram, Stalin replied at 9:35 p.m. that the Soviets were willing to sign the pact and that he would receive Ribbentrop on August 23.

It's pretty unreal that someone would claim that these didn't occur.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. I also removed redundant references that carry no additional information.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First. The Soviet Union and Germany neither negotiated about any alliance nor signed any treaty that fits the definition of alliance. The sentence in your version is a result of a misinterpretation of the sources (or usage of bad sources). They signed non-aggression pact, not alliance.
 * Second. In spring—early summer of 1939, Britain, France and the USSR discussed a possibility of anti-German political alliance. These discussion lead to political negotiations that started in June and stalled in mid-July. During that time no reliably documented decisive steps had been done by the Soviet leadership for political rapprochement with Germany.
 * Third. Although military negotiations between Britain, France and the USSR started in August, all parties fully realized that the negotiators had no authority to sign any document until the political agreement was achieved. Since the political negotiations had stalled in July, the perspectives were vague.
 * Forth. Although after 26 July the Soviet leadership started the process of rapprochement with Nazi Germany, that lead to secret negotiations that begun in mid-August, it would be absolutely incorrect to say that "After prior discussions with France, Britain and Germany over potential alliance on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany" for following reasons:
 * 1. The USSR never discussed over potential alliance with Germany before 1940.
 * 2. The USSR did discuss over potential alliance with the UK/France and even conducted full-scale political negotiations before any serious steps towards rapprochement with Germany had been made.
 * 3. Due to precedence of the political Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations over military ones it is much more correct to say that the USSR negotiated over alliance with the UK/France and then decided to sign a pact with Germany, that to write about ''simultaneous negotiations between the USSR, Germany, France and Britain.
 * Fifth. I already presented all these arguments (with needed sources) many times on this and other talk pages, so I am not intended to renew the discussion on that subject. I changed the text back, and if you disagree, I propose WP:RFC, WP:RFM, or other similar ways to resolve a situation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be VERY CLEAR: The sentence was regarding talks before August 23, 1939, and you kept deleting any mention of Germany in these talks, which is not only fringe, but frankly a FALSE citation of Roberts -- flat out, undebatably -- not that I'm going to jump all over you about it.


 * Rather than stick with the history, to get past this issue -- readers can look at more detail in Stalin in World War II subarticle -- instead of sticking with the actual August 23 hard date, or getting into some temporal argument -- I just changed it to: "The Soviet Union failed to sign a political alliance with France and Britain, and entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, negotiated by Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop"


 * If this compromise to get past this fringe point without having to address it either way doesn't work, we can always go back to the actual history -- and there are at least 20 sources (every major source) on simply this factually correct summary: "After prior discussions with France, Britain and Germany over a potential political deal, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, negotiated by Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop."  (see every source above).

One way or the another, it is very good that you agree to go to mediation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, to simplify the matter, I would be happy to go to mediation on and trot out every source with a pre-8/23/39 conversation and end the matter. The sources there are in complete agreement.  I've been trying to avoid the "Stalin tricked the western Allies vs. The dealings were entirely sequential debate" by just mentioning the hard historical fact of the singing date and the hard historical fact that they talked to everyone before that date, which is of course true.   The details are better suited for Stalin in World War II, and more specifically the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even more specifically the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand which my statement is a false interpretation of Roberts, who directly stated that the USSR made no steps towards Germany until the very end of July, in other words, when it became clear that political triple talks had failed, or suspended indefinitely (that was the same in that situation). I also don't understand why do you systematically remove any mentioning of the anti-German character of the prospective Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance. I also don't understand what do you have against temporal restrictions. I don't think your change to bring more clarity, so I revert your edit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your words about avoiding the "Stalin tricked the western Allies vs. The dealings were entirely sequential debate" look somewhat strange because your version definitely gives more weight to the first version: "After prior discussions with France, Britain and Germany over a potential political deal" implies that both talks took place simultaneously (questionable POV) and both negotiations had the same level (also incorrect because in actuality Stalin had to choose between military anti-German treaty, that lead to immediate war between the USSR and Germany, and non-aggression pact with no obligations towards any party).


 * Okay, you don't want to compromise -- or even begin to work on a compromise for that matter -- then let's just stick the the hard history upon which they all agree -- August 23, 1939 was the date of the Pact and they talked with all parties (UK, France, Germany) about a political deal before that date. INCLUDING ROBERTS 2006 -- SEE PAGE 32 FOR EXAMPLE.

The books and articles of Roberts, Watson, Carr, Beloff, Carley as well as other authors both you and I read may serve as a proof for these my statements. Therefore, I do not understand why did you reverted my edit, and why do you think you are doing me a favour by (partial) accepting of some of changes I made. You behave like the article's owner, and as a disruptive editor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a mediation somehow challenging the accuracy of that history, I will be more than willing to participate. The numerous sources, including Roberts 2006, are above.  Full quotes from each source on every pre-8/23/39 conversation can be provided lest there be the slightest doubt what they say.  I don't advise in engaging in initiating such a mediation without a single source I've ever seen describing no pre-8/23/39 conversations with Germany to back any such point, but feel free if you really want to push that point.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Let me just specify something. Not only you misinterpreted the sources you use, you misinterpreted my point of view presented above. My major points are:
 * 1. Anglo-Franco-Soviet consultations over possible anti-German alliance started three month before the Soviet officials took first decisive steps towards Germany. Anglo-Franco-Soviet political negotiations started two month before Molotov and Ribbentrop met first time. I concede that alternative points of view (e.g. German school, according to Roberts) exists on that account, however they have no solid documentary base.
 * 2. The USSR turned towards Germany only after it became clear that the triple talks stalled. Although different points of view extst on what Stalin really kept in mind, existing documents testify that there is no serious reasons to claim that the USSR was oriented on the alliance with Germany from the very beginning.
 * 3. Britain, France and the USSR negotiated about political alliance directly aimed against Germany, whereas Hitler and Stalin discussed just a non-aggression treaty with minimal mutual obligations.


 * You're now talking about interpreting the whether discussions UK-France discussion had ended before German talks, which isn't even addressed in this article on Joseph Stalin. Moreover, as you yourself note, the topic is clearly not decided as, just for instance, there were allied military negotiators in Moscow at the time of the deal that were absolutely stunned by the inking with Germany -- which is not mentioned in this article on Joseph Stalin either.


 * I changed it to the hard history upon which all agree because: (i) your citations are actually wrong (in fact, false, really, though I haven't made a deal about it) and (ii) it now has a sentence listing the hard agreed upon history BY ALL. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I am "talking about interpreting the whether full scale Soviet-UK-France negotiations preceded  the start of the Soviet-German talks. You provided no explanation why, to your opinion, my citations are wrong (or even false). I expect you either to explain (concisely and concretely) what is incorrect in items #1-3, or to take your words back. I also want you to explain me why your last modification is more correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, this article doesn't even go into the details of interpreting the machinations of the UK-France and Germany talks. That's somewhat covered in Stalin in World War II, covered moreso in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even moreso in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations.  This article is actually a bit too long as it is.


 * Second, your prior citations were incorrect when you claimed they supported your deletion of the prior text that "After prior discussions with France, Britain and Germany over a potential political deal, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany." In fact, they themselves discuss conversations with Germany prior to 8/23/39.  It simply can't get any more clear than that, and many of them are listed in bullet points above.


 * My modification was just to mention that prior political deal talks existed with Germany as well. In fact, I didn't even go into, for example, the fact that a friggin' UK-France Military party was actually conducting talks IN MOSCOW up to two days before the M-R Pact signing. That's also for another article. Rather, I just added a clause including that there had also been prior German talks.  Which, of course, their had, per every source listed.03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You didn't address my point. The major points are the following: 1. Starting from mid-April, 1939, Britain and then the USSR proposed to discuss a possibility of taking mutual obligations in case if aggressive activity of Germany will expand. 2. The sources disagree upon real Stalin's intentions during that period, but it is clear that no solid documentary evidences exists of Soviet-German rapprochement until the end of July. Roberts (the source you cite, page 32, directly states:"Until (early August) Stalin had not given Ribbentrop any encouragement"), therefore, the triple alliance political negotiations had started, reached their high point and stalled before any Soviet-German negotiations or consultations had started . 3. Since the achievement of the political agreement was a conditio sine qua non, the Anglo-Franco-Soviet military negotiations were aimed just to fill a pause in the (suspended) political talks. Therefore, the fact that some (less important) part of the triple talks took place concurrently with the secret Soviet-German talks during a very short (a couple weeks) period is not sufficient for making the statement you did. If "this article doesn't even go into the details", then the events must be described in such a way: triple talks first, Molotov-Ribbentrop second. The details should be disclosed in the more specialized articles. One more thing, also very important. You accused me in doing wrong, and even false citations. The personal attack is a violation of the policy. I am absolutely tolerant to such attacks and even insults, provided that they rest on the solid ground. However, I still cannot understand which facts did I interpreted incorrectly, and you provided no explanations for that. Please, explain that, or take your words back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Re: "The major points are the following"
 * --All caps and bold: YOUR POINTS REGARDING THE TIMING DETAILS AND SEQUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL PRE-8/23/39 TALKS AREN'T EVEN ADDRESSED IN ARTICLE. How many times must this be stated?  Do we need large colored fonts?
 * --No timing of the various pre-8/23/39 talks are in the article. Just that they occurred with all parties (without reference to timing either way), WHICH THEY DID. Period.  Every single source on the planet states as much.  Please see above for a list of just the pre-8/23 German talks alone.
 * --Such discussions are somewhat covered in Stalin in World War II, covered moreso in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even moreso in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations


 * 2. You just attempted to add the following full sentence to the article: "After a failed attempt to sign an anti-German political alliance with France and Britain Staling accepted Hitler's proposal regarding a political deal"
 * --It's not Staling
 * --You this time flat out falsely cited sources and page numbers, because those listed in no way state "Staling accepted Hitler's proposal regarding a political deal". This is not a "personal attack" but a fact if you check the page numbers and sources for at least many of those you listed.
 * --The reason for that is that you simply inserted a completely different fact in front of the exact same page numbers and sources without reading them. You literally didn't change a single source or page number before changing the fact in front of them.  I'm not going to jump up and down and make a big deal about it because I know you're not trying to lie to anyone, but just pointing out the obvious.
 * --The sources detail the various conversations between Germany and the Soviet Union in late July and early August. This is a point NO ONE disputes. In fact, the simple matter that the Soviet Union talks to all of Germany, France and Britain before 8/23 isn't disputed by anyone, and this entire argument is descending into some bizarre side point that, as mentioned, just isn't in this article.  Please take it to the other articles.


 * 3. Re: "then the events must be described in such a way: triple talks first, Molotov-Ribbentrop second. The details should be disclosed in the more specialized articles."
 * --For one, NOBODY, not Roberts or anyone else, states it that way. The political talks had merely "stalled" over one point -- they weren't canceled altogether, and in no remote way had ANYONE said there could be no deal. In fact, hammering this home, there were actually UK and French military negotiators still IN MOSCOW at the time. Which Roberts himself states.
 * --But guess what? We don't have to waste time arguing about this beyond obvious historical point because the article doesn't even go into this detail anyway, so it doesn't matter either way.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. --All lowercase and regular: it is incorrect that the details of pre-8/23/39 weren't even addressed in the article. You are not the article owner (or, probably, you think you do?), so you are not entitled to single-hahdedly decide what should be in the article and what shouldn't. However, I don't mind you to use large coloured font if you you wish...
 * --The Stalin in World War II and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact articles are plagued with multiple errors and the only reason I hadn't fix them so far is your stubborn resistance.
 * 2. I didn't attempted to do that. I added it. And I will add it again because you failed to refute my arguments. If two consecutive events overlap with each other only partially, and this overlap is minor, it would be more correct to say that one preceded another than to state that they were concurrent.
 * --Taking into account that you are a native English speaker and I am not, it is not polite to point at my minor mistakes (in actuality, mistypes). By the way, by contrast with you, I newer do facual errors. For instance, I never write "Black Sea" instaed of "Caspian Sea", or "Germany" instead of "Britain" (like you did many times).
 * 3. The talks were suspended indefinitely. Taking into account that political situation in Europe was developing by leaps and bounds, that effectively meant "ceased". Therefore, if the article doesn't even go into this details, my version is more correct. Please, don't revert my change untill you provided the better arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "it is incorrect that the details of pre-8/23/39 weren't even addressed in the article"
 * --Why even fib about something like this?
 * --This was the entirely of the text of the article "After prior discussions with France, Britain and Germany over a potential political deal, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, negotiated by Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop."


 * Re: "The Stalin in World War II and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact articles are plagued with multiple errors"
 * --Then address them there, not here.
 * --This has been the problem all alone-> you want to bring some theory you have that is discussed about the timing and details of various individual pre-8/23/39 deal discussions from those articles into this one.


 * Re: "If two consecutive events overlap with each other only partially, and this overlap is minor, it would be more correct to say that one preceded another than to state that they were concurrent."
 * --The answer to that isn't just "no", but that's pretty hilarious.  In any event, not a topic for this article.

2. In addition, you neither apologized for your insulting behaviour (accusing me in false citation), nor provided a reasonable support for your claims. The discussion about the single sentence took enormous space, and I you refuse to answer my direct questions. In other words, the situations, that took place many times before that, is reproduced again. Let me also remind you that you reported to ANI about my allegedly disruptive behaviour and got no support from the WP community. 3. All said above (insults, treats, refusal to get a point and going to ANI without serious reason) demonstrate that you are a problem editor, so I recommend you to re-consider your behaviour. I don't feel uncomfortable to collaborate with you in future. Moreover, taking into account that I (as well as any other person) may be biased, your point of view may serve a good counter-balance needed to achieve a neutrality (that is one of the WP pillars). I fully realize that, and I am ready to accept your point of view when the solid documentary base is provided. However, by your disruptive behaviour you effectively prevented me form work on some WP article. That is intolerable. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Therefore, if the article doesn't even go into this details, my version is more correct. "
 * --No, the historical citations are correct in that all parties were talked with pre-8/23, not "your version".Mosedschurte (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. There is nothing about my version vs historical citations. We are talking about your version and my version. Although all parties talked before 8/23, the Soviets started to negotiate with Germany only in mid-August (Roberts), whereas not only the triple talks had started, but even reached a sticking point and were suspended indefinitely by that time. You never refuted this my point, therefore, you failed to refute my major argument.


 * Re: "There is nothing about my version vs historical citations. We are talking about your version and my version."
 * --Unlike you, I don't have a version. The version is the basic history that they talked to all parties pre-8/23/39
 * --More importantly, the detail and interpretations of the sequence of individual talks aren't addressed in this article.


 * Re: "and were suspended indefinitely by that time. You never refuted this my point, therefore, you failed to refute my major argument."
 * --First, the individual pre-8/23 timing is not even addressed in this article.
 * --Second, that's actually wrong, only the political negotiator talks were stalled (and not even before the further July Soviet-German talks started anyway) while UK-France military negotiators continued in Moscow.
 * --Of course, I'm not even including that in this article, or the shock of the UK/France negotiators in Moscow when the deal with Hitler was signed, as that's for another article.


 * Re: "In addition, you neither apologized for your insulting behaviour (accusing me in false citation), nor provided a reasonable support for your claims."
 * --You've got to be kidding me. You falsely cited a fact by taking 5+ cites for another fact entirely (Pre-8/23 talks, some of those cites were for July talks only) and directly copying and pasting them behind your new fact, without so much as changing a page number.  The cites and page numbers simply did not state what you had stated.   In fact, some of them never discussed any sort of "Hitler proposal" on any page number at all.
 * --You should be glad that I'm not pulling and copying pasting each of these individually, along with your false cite, to point out the falsity. Instead, I really think you just did that out of ignorance rather than because of any overtly nefarious intent, I dropped the matter after stating as much.


 * Re: "The discussion about the single sentence took enormous space, and I you refuse to answer my direct questions."
 * Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I don't even know what that means.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One more version
I changed the text to the following:

After a failed attempt to sign an anti-German political alliance with France and Britain  Stalin accepted a Hitler's proposal of the political deal     and after brief secret negotiation between the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.

That is correct, because: 1. Political triple negotiation effectively failed by mid-August (Roberts) 2. Molotov and Ribbentrop met in mid-August only. 3. If you want to mention military talks feel free to do that, but I think they belong to the daughter articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, were you to include that assertion again with those cites behind it after already being warned, keep in mind that that would be a second false citation of cites -- this time KNOWINGLY. I've pointed out several times that some of those cites not only don't say anything about  "Hitler's proposal", but they are to July-only Germany-USSR conversations.


 * The first time, I didn't make a big deal about this thinking it was out of simple ignorance of what the sources state. If you include that AFTER you were already told that the cites didn't state that, then you are clearly falsely citing material.  Again, I'm not making a big deal out of this at all, and am actually just warning you about it.  You stated before this was some sort of "personal attack", and I'm actually trying to prevent you from making a mistake re those sources and page numbers. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Second, it's also incorrect because they had talked with Germany prior to 8/23 about such a deal (in fact, even in July), so that would be added -- in fact, that's actually what the 5+ sources you cite state (many don't even mention a "Hitler's proposal"). Many of them are in here (from above):


 * On July 26, over dinner, the Soviets accepted a proposed three stage agenda which included the economic agenda first and "a new arrangement which took account of the vital political interests of both parties."
 * On July 28, Molotov sent a first political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany.
 * On August 1, the Soviet ambassador stated that two conditions must be met before political negotiations could begin: a new economic treaty and the cessation of anti-Soviet attacks by German media, with which German officials immediately agreed.
 * On August 3, German Foreign Minister Joachim Ribbentrop told Soviet diplomats that "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us." The Germans discussed prior hostility between the nations in the 1930s. They addressed the common ground of anti-capitalism, stating "there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union:  opposition to the capitalist democracies," "neither we nor Italy have anything in common with the capitalist west" and "it seems to us rather unnatural that a socialist state would stand on the side of the western democracies."  They explained that their prior hostility toward Soviet Bolshevism had subsided with the changes in the Comintern and the Soviet renunciation of a world revolution.  Astakhov characterized the conversation as "extremely important."
 * By August 10, the countries worked out the last minor technical details to to make all but final the their economic arrangement, but the Soviets delayed signing that agreement for almost ten days until they were sure that they had reached a political agreement with Germany. The Soviet ambassador explained to German officials that the Soviets had begun their British negotiations "without much enthusiasm" at a time when they felt Germany would not "come to an understanding", and the parallel talks with the British could not be simply broken off when they had been initiated after 'mature consideration.'
 * On August 12, Germany received word that Molotov wished to further discuss these issues, including Poland, in Moscow.
 * August 19 - Hitler himself sent out a coded telegram to Stalin stating that because "Poland has become intolerable," Stalin must receive Ribbentrop in Moscow by August 23 at the latest to sign a Pact.
 * August 21, Stalin has received assurance would approve secret protocols to the proposed non-aggression pact that would grant the Soviets land in Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Romania. That night, with Germany nervously awaiting a response to Hitler's August 19 telegram, Stalin replied at 9:35 p.m. that the Soviets were willing to sign the pact and that he would receive Ribbentrop on August 23.


 * Third, of course, if there is any mention of the UK-France political negotiations stalling (not that I think we would go there), but of course then there would have to be mention of the UK-France military negotiations going forward in Moscow. If we're going to insert the facts, it clearly wouldn't be one sided with the one UK-France team stalling while the other pressed forward.


 * Like I said, no details of these pre-8/23/39 belongs in this article anyway. They are for  Stalin in World War II, and go into more detail in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even more detail in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations.  This article is already a bit too long as is without adding even futher detail.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. That is much more concrete. However, you are a smart man and you should know that I am aware of all these facts. They fit pretty well into my major point: that the rapprochement started after the political talks failed. July 26 was a economical deal talks, and you shouldn't mix it with political talks. Before July 28, nothing serious took place. Therefore, my scheme is correct: political triple talks first, a sticking point second and after that simultaneous Soviet-German secret talks and military triple negotiations.
 * With regards to the citations about mid-July Soviet-German talks, it rests on shaky ground, so I would remove it from such a general article.
 * As regards to your "it clearly wouldn't be one sided with the one UK-France team stalling while the other pressed forward", that is quite correct. If your read thtose time diplomatic correspondence, you will find that the most active party during late August was France. They took enormous effort trying to convince Poland to let the Soviet troop to pass through Polish territories if the was started. They even tried to to falsely claim in Moscow that the Pole agree (keeping in mind to convince them later)...
 * One way or the another, I see no major problem with my version of the sentence. However, I see no problem to mention military talks. It is probably make sense to tell about a deep mistrust between Stalin and the Western leaders. Try to think about the version that would satisfy both of us, and we will continue tomorrow.
 * In contrast to you I think that these pre-8/23/39 do belong to the article, and you should respect my point of view. By contrast, the anecdotes about trading toasts should be removed to save a space and to focus on really important things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "If your read thtose time diplomatic correspondence"
 * Not only are the various pre-8/23 talk details outside the bounds of this particular article, but that would be WP:PRIMARY research.


 * Re: "They fit pretty well into my major point: that the rapprochement started after the political talks failed."
 * They were actually just suspended indefinitely while the military talks went forward, but it doesn't matter as it's beyond the scope of this article anyway.


 * Re: "One way or the another, I see no major problem with my version of the sentence."
 * You mean besides that it currently would falsely cite sources, goes beyond the scope of this article and, even if it was withing the scope of this article, would be one-sided?


 * Re: "Try to think about the version that would satisfy both of us, and we will continue tomorrow.In contrast to you I think that these pre-8/23/39 do belong to the article, and you should respect my point of view. By contrast, the anecdotes about trading toasts should be removed to save a space and to focus on really important things"
 * I will, but I have to say that I am definitely inclined to add no additional details, and would be more inclined to include no 8/23 mentions of anything at all (i.e, cut the sentence altogether) rather than go into more details about it.
 * I can see cutting the Stalin-Ribbentrop signing day statements as an overall paring down of the article. But I can't in any way see including the pre-8/23 discussions -- which didn't even involve Stalin -- while simultaneously cutting the Stalin-Ribbentrop statements regarding past hostilities, which obviously involved Stalin directly.  That whole pre-8/23 sentence would definitely go before the Stalin-Ribbentrop statements in a Joseph Stalin article.  But I could see cutting them both.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)